Statutory reference procedure under the Life Insurance Corporation Act barred a direct tribunal application by the insurer.

A direct application by an insurer to the Tribunal under section 16(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 was held to be outside the statutory scheme, because the reference had to be initiated through the Corporation and the insurer had no independent right to approach the Tribunal. The rule-making provisions in rule 12 of the Life Insurance Corporation Rules, 1956 did not validate that defective procedure or cure the absence of a proper reference, and the proviso could not be read to create a power not found in the main text. On that reasoning, the direct proceeding was treated as incompetent and the statutory challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under section 16(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, an insurer could directly move the Tribunal for determination of compensation or was required to move the Corporation for a reference; (ii) whether the limitation and condonation provisions in rule 12 of the Life Insurance Corporation Rules, 1956 applied to a direct application by the insurer and could sustain the proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether, under section 16(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, an insurer could directly move the Tribunal for determination of compensation or was required to move the Corporation for a reference.

Analysis: The statutory language contemplated that the matter be referred to the Tribunal for decision and did not confer a direct right on the insurer to approach the Tribunal. Read with the scheme of the Act, the reference had to be initiated through the Corporation, which alone could make the reference after the insurer moved it. A direct application by the insurer was therefore outside the procedure created by the statute. The proviso to rule 12 also indicated that the reference contemplated by the rule was not a direct application by the Corporation alone, but a reference made by the person entitled to seek it under the Act.

Conclusion: The insurer had no right to directly move the Tribunal, and the proceedings initiated in that manner were incompetent.

Issue (ii): Whether the limitation and condonation provisions in rule 12 of the Life Insurance Corporation Rules, 1956 applied to a direct application by the insurer and could sustain the proceedings.

Analysis: The rule-making scheme required a prescribed period for the insurer to move the Corporation for a reference, but no such period had been validly prescribed for that purpose. Rule 12, when read as a whole, did not cure this gap, because its language and proviso were inconsistent with treating the Corporation as the reference-making party in every case. Since the proceedings had not been validly initiated through the Corporation, the question of extending time for a direct approach to the Tribunal did not arise. The proviso could not be rewritten to confer a power not found in the text.

Conclusion: The limitation objection did not save the direct proceeding, and no relief could be granted on the basis of rule 12.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the claim before the Tribunal was not instituted in the manner required by the statutory scheme, and the impugned proceedings were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides that a dispute shall be referred to a tribunal through a specified statutory authority, a direct invocation of the tribunal's jurisdiction by the beneficiary is incompetent unless the statute or valid rules expressly authorise it; a proviso cannot be used to rewrite the operative provision.

---